nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

When moving multiple transactions Quicken shouldn't prompt on every reconciled transaction

JustMeHere

If you use move or cut and paste to move transactions from one register to another Quicken will prompt you on every reconciled transaction if you want to do it. When moving multiple transactions the user should be able to select to do repeat the answer to that question for all the rest of the moves.

Find more posts tagged with

Planned

Accounts

Comments

UKR

Simple way to avoid this:

First block-select the transactions you want to move.
Change them from "Reconciled" to "Cleared" or "Not reconciled": Right-click any highlighted transaction. Select Reconcile Status, select desired new status from popup.
Block-select transactions again.
Move them.
Go to the destination account register.
Block-select the just moved transactions and mark them "Reconciled".

Note: When moving transactions from one account register to another, never move the Opening Balance transaction. There should only be one Opening Balance transaction in an account register ever. Edit Date and Amount of the existing Opening Balance transaction as needed.

Rocket J Squirrel

UKR said:

Simple way to avoid this:

You call that "simple"? I call it a PITA. And it fails if some, but not all, of the transactions are reconciled. Step 2 loses the cleared/reconciled states and you'd have to print a report so you could restore them.

This suggestion has my vote.

JustMeHere

The very fact that you have to have a FAQ for the workaround and in this case even your second method of workaround it should be a red flag to everyone that it isn't right.

Quicken Anja

Hello All,

The Community Support team regularly reviews long-standing posts and Ideas for relevancy and current interest. This Idea seems to have stalled and we would like to gauge the current interest in this request.

If you would like to see this idea implemented, please add your vote and a comment explaining how this idea would be beneficial for you. More information, including steps to vote and how to submit your own Ideas for future product features/improvements, is also available here.

Thank you,

Quicken Community Support Team

UKR

Despite the lukewarm reception, this request should be implemented.
A single prompt should suffice for a block-move operation.

Rocket J Squirrel

I still support this idea. It seems clear there is a confirmation step inside the loop which should either be moved outside the loop or allow a single confirmation to bypass further multiple confirmations.

davidca

Need this now and didn't know it until I tried a mass transaction move! Comeon! Bottom line this is just a glorified database program and mass changes are sometimes needed to databases. The popup is great, just needs an option to confirm for processing all remaining records.

RnR

Am now trying to move 1000's of reconciled xactions from one account to another. Having to click 'ok' on each one. Searching for an easier way to do this and found this thread. I can get by with the work-around to clear all xactions first (I can make note of the few that truly are not yet reconciled, and reconcile all the others again after the move). But what a pain. Please add a 'yes to all' option. Thank you!

BDon

How do you block select

NotACPA

BDon said:

How do you block select

@UKR described that in his February 2020 post in this thread.

OOPS, I misremembered. You click the 1st txn to be chosen and then Shift-click the last to be chosen. Everything in between will be selected.

Rocket J Squirrel

RnR said:

Am now trying to move 1000's of reconciled xactions from one account to another. Having to click 'ok' on each one. Searching for an easier way to do this

Block select using Left Click and Shift-Click. Then COPY the transactions from the source account and PASTE them into the destination account. Quicken will not prompt for reconciled transactions. Then go to the source account and delete the copied transactions.

Ovidiu

This is absolutely RIDICULOUS!
Who's the Engineer that thinks documenting this lame workaround is an option or makes any sense at all, instead of implementing this trivial and absolutely standard way to deal with multiple identical prompts for a block of operations???
Not to mention that with the workaround you get to the next unended set of prompts: "Deleting transfer to cleared (R) item. Are you sure?" So you need to virtually cleared the Reconciled items from all other accounts.
Also, why would that be deleted?? I'm doing a move. The transfer should be updated to point to the new account (even if internally is done as a delete/insert, which in itself it would be an issue).

For what is worth I'm forced to do this because my Citi Costco has stopped downloading and the only way to get it going is to create a new account for it (tried all other alternatives; none worked).

UKR

Ovidiu said:

...
For what is worth I'm forced to do this because my Citi Costco has stopped downloading and the only way to get it going is to create a new account for it (tried all other alternatives; none worked).

How about leaving the old account register with all the old transactions alone?
As of a recent statement date create a transfer to transfer the outstanding balance from old to new, then start using the new register for all new transactions.
Mark the old register closed and rename it "~Costco Visa (old)".
Your transaction history will remain available as long as you don't delete the old register and/or its transactions.

Chris_QPW

Ovidiu said:

This is absolutely RIDICULOUS!
Who's the Engineer that thinks documenting this lame workaround is an option or makes any sense at all, instead of implementing this trivial and absolutely standard way to deal with multiple identical prompts for a block of operations???

It is ridiculous, but in all these years the Quicken users haven't been able to convince the Quicken Windows developers/management to change it.

There isn't any "Engineer" that thinks that, you are dealing with two completely different parties.
The people documenting the workaround are other Quicken users, not the Quicken Windows developers.

And the decision to change this or not isn't necessarily being done with the logic you are thinking of.
And frankly the very fact that there is a workaround reduces the chance that it will be fixed.

The list of things to fix in Quicken is huge and never ending.
So, first a given problem has to get on some list.
Then it is given a priority (and the priority might lowered if there is a workaround)
And if they think the code is going to be hard (it is known that the register code is complicated, and touching tends to break things) they might put it at an even lower priority.
And then there is how many people are complaining about it.

So, the decision is as much (maybe more so) about just deciding to do something and getting it in queue to be worked on as it is about how logical that it should be changed.

Rocket J Squirrel

I don't think this is complicated enough to warrant debate. Given the pain this issue causes, it should simply be remedied.

Let's assume there's a function which prompts the user to verify whether a transaction should be moved before actually moving it.

void MoveTransaction(transaction *t, account *source, account *dest) {
if (PromptUserToMove(t))
ReallyMoveTransaction(t, source, dest);
}

Now let's add an optional argument to bypass the prompt.

void MoveTransaction(transaction *t, account *source, account *dest, bool ok = false) {
if (ok || PromptUserToMove(t))
ReallyMoveTransaction(t, source, dest);
}

Note that from the point of view of the caller, the MoveTransaction() function can still be called with 3 arguments. The 4th argument is optional, defaulting to false to preserve the current behavior.

If the caller of MoveTransaction() knows that it's inside a loop, it could simply provide a true value for the optional boolean argument, bypassing the prompt.

Chris_QPW

@Rocket J Squirrel everyone knows that it is much more important to work things like instead of disabling the Reset filters button, hide it, and or course introduce bugs into that process. Or creating a the FBAR report that no one can really decide whether it was implemented correctly or not, and no one was asking for (and they even implemented it in Quicken Mac right afterwards and made it a "Premier Only" feature.

Yes, I'm being very sarcastic in this because in truth like you, I believe the code change to be simple, so the only reason it hasn't been done has to be attributed to the fact that Quicken Inc doesn't understand what their customers need and what is causing them pain. Or maybe they don't care. They are more concerned about putting in half working features to say they have them, so they can sell Quicken.

Rocket J Squirrel

Chris_QPW said:

it is much more important to work things like instead of disabling the Reset filters button, hide it, and or course introduce bugs into that process. Or creating a the FBAR report that no one can really decide whether it was implemented correctly or not, and no one was asking for

Pfft. That's nothing. They took the Backup dialog and added the optional timestamp to the filename and broke the entire dialog.

Chris_QPW

Rocket J Squirrel said:

Chris_QPW said:

it is much more important to work things like instead of disabling the Reset filters button, hide it, and or course introduce bugs into that process. Or creating a the FBAR report that no one can really decide whether it was implemented correctly or not, and no one was asking for

Pfft. That's nothing. They took the Backup dialog and added the optional timestamp to the filename and broke the entire dialog.

But at least some people asked for the feature to put the time on the backup file name before they messed it up.

But I guess we should take that as a big warning. Even though we know that this feature is simple to implement (for a qualified programmer), the Quicken Windows developers have proven that we shouldn't assume that they can implement it without causing more problems.